Federal Judge Strikes Down Utah’S Ban On Same-Sex Marriage

[jwhitlock]

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States, if you had taken as many graduate courses in US History, and as many professional courses in Constitutional law, as I you would know that, or if you had stayed awake in your High School History course you might have understood what you read. And by the way, are you actually aware of what Madison said of the 10th Amendment?

 

James Madison: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in State governments are numerous and indefinite.” 

 

Not sure how the above post helps you out, at all. It certainly points out how the Federal government has usurped power not granted to it.

 

Odd that you should try to use the 14th amendment as justification for SSM when it has been abused so much by the judiciary with some particularly tortured interpretations. One that come readily to mind is the interpretation that the 14th amendment use of "person" includes corporations, which gives them protection equal to real people.

 

And we hold up the judiciary as being "reasonable"? Shelby's ruling simply confirms the downward trend of interpretive license.

[Danzo]

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the States.

 

You will have to let me know what version of the Bill of rights you are reading.  The version I have doesn't mention Marriage.

 

if you had taken as many graduate courses in US History.

 

Since obviously you have taken more history than me, you can show me where marriage law was discussed with the bill or rights or the 14th amendment  Since I obviously fell asleep during high school history,  you can tell me when homosexual marriage became a federal issue.

 

and as many professional courses in Constitutional law

 

 

I have studied constitutional law. I practice law, do you? All the Constitutional law you are referring to are the decisions of judges, who make decisions based on their own beliefs. If you want to know how the judges make their decisions, look at what party they belong to.  Do you have the same reverence for Citizens United, Bush vs Gore, or Heller vs District of Columbia? Probably not.

 

 

Look, I get it.

 

You like Homosexual marriage! you agree with the Judge! Congratulations!  You think marriage should be whatever anyone decides at the time it is.

 

We disagree.

 

In some states the people agreed with you

 

Some states they agree with me.

 

Usually these type of policy issues get resolved at the ballot box or through the legislature. 

 

It would appear that you like that Judges  override what the people want.  (As long as these judges agree with you)

 

Be careful what you wish for.  Judges in the future might disagree with you, and maybe all of the people in your state. They may override things you think are important, and use the word "constitution" in justifying it.  You too also might experience the feeling that your vote doesn't count anymore. 

[Daniel2]

Season's Greetings from ABC News

Federal Appeals Court: No Halt to Gay Marriages in Utah

By BRADY McCOMBS and PAUL FOY Associated Press

Dec 24, 2013, 12:31 AM

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that gay marriages can continue in Utah, denying a request from the state to halt same-sex weddings that have been occurring at a rapid rate since last week.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' rejection of Utah's request for an emergency stay marks yet another legal setback for the state. The same federal judge who ruled that Utah's same-sex marriage ban violates gay and lesbian couples' rights previously denied the state's request to halt the marriages.

The appeals court said in its short ruling that a decision to put gay marriage on hold was not warranted, but said it put the case on the fast track for a full appeal of the ruling.

Utah's last chance to temporarily stop the marriages would be the U.S. Supreme Court. That's what the Utah Attorney General's Office is prepared to do, said spokesman Ryan Bruckman. "We're disappointed in the ruling, but we just have to take it to the next level," Bruckman said.

Gov. Gary Herbert's office declined comment on the decision.

Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond who has tracked legal battles for gay marriage, thinks Utah faces long odds to get their stay granted, considering two courts have already rejected it and marriages have been going on for days now.

"The longer this goes on, the less likely it becomes that any court is going to entertain a stay," Tobias said.

The appeals court ruling means county clerks can continue to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. More than 700 gay couples have obtained marriage licenses since Friday, with most of the activity in Salt Lake City.

One of the couples that brought the case, Moudi Sbeity and Derek Kitchen, were driving home from the grocery store when their attorney called with the good news. Sbeity said it's wonderful that multiple levels of courts are making it clear there's no room for discrimination.

"It seems like we win over and over again. This is crazy," Sbeity said. "This has been the best Christmas gift ever."

Judge Robert J. Shelby's decision to strike down a law passed by voters in 2004 drew attention given Utah's long-standing opposition to gay marriage and its position as headquarters for the Mormon church. It made Utah the 18th state where gay couples can wed.

I know some won't view this as the wonderful Christmas gift, as others of us do.

Via Chris Geidner at Buzzfeed: 

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the state of Utah’s request to stop same-sex couples’ marriages during the appeal of the judge’s ruling that started those marriages on Friday.“Having considered the district court’s decision and the parties’ arguments concerning the stay factors, we conclude that a stay is not warranted,” Judges Jerome Holmes and Robert Bacharach wrote in an order signed by court clerk Elisabeth Shumaker for the court.

The denial means that a Friday decision by Judge Robert Shelby striking down the state’s ban on same-sex couples marrying will remain in place during the appeal of the case, absent a contrary ruling from the Supreme Court — to which Utah officials could appeal. Interim requests of the type that would be filed in this situation would go to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who oversees such requests from the 10th Circuit. She could either decide the matter on her own or refer the matter to the whole court for consideration.

The state has announced it will be going right to Sotomayor.

If the 10th circuit upholds Shelby's ruling and the Supreme Court punts, we will see the entire 10th circuit having marriage equality.

Regardless of your family or Faith, wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas... off to eat some milk and cookies while on Santa duty.

D

[Damien the Leper]

Incorrect the sealing post civil marriage is a temple sealing, not a marriage.  The marriage license you get from the civil authorities is the same as the one you get and take to a judge or anyone else authorized by the state to do marriages.  When you go for a sealing after a civil marriage you do not need a marriage license as you are already married.  What you need is a temple recommend.

 

It is not the temple sealing that is recognized but the marriage that is performed just prior to and in conjunction with the sealing.

 

Therefore, a sealing is not the equivalent or above a marriage. Got it.

[Damien the Leper]

The hubster has two babies. We gotta get ready. I love my future sons so much.

[Daniel2]

Incorrect the sealing post civil marriage is a temple sealing, not a marriage. The marriage license you get from the civil authorities is the same as the one you get and take to a judge or anyone else authorized by the state to do marriages. When you go for a sealing after a civil marriage you do not need a marriage license as you are already married.

This is incorrect. Much of the fearful predictions in this thread that LDS clergy will be "forced" to marry same-sex couples haven't made a clear distinction between "receiving a marriage licence" vs. "Being licensed by the state to marry couples (that is, to officiate over a wedding ceremony)." The failure to draw/understand the difference is probably contributing to these irrational fears.

By way of further explanation to differentiate:

Applying for and receiving a marriage license from a county clerk doesn't mean you ARE married. It means you have a license to GET married. After receiving that license to GET married, any couple must THEN get married by any official licensed by the state to do so--which could be a secular justice of the peace, authorized representative of the state, or a religious clergy member who gas been licensed by the state to do so. Licenses to get married expire if couples don't get married within a specific timeframe.

Clergy (even those licensed to officiate over weddings by the state) have never been, cannot, will never and should never be forced to marry individuals against their will or the specifications/requirements/tennants of their Faith.

In the US, the LDS church will not and cannot legally wed anyone in a temple who first has not applied for and received a license from a county clerk to then GET married.

Couples are then required to bring that license to the temple/church/synagogue/park/courthouse/beach prior to their wedding/sealing (for LDS, in the temple). However, LDS clergy are NOT legally bound to wed anyone who brings them a legal marriage license (i.e. ANY non-LDS couple, Catholic couple, same-sex couple, atheist couple, etc).

Justices of the Peace (as entirely secular representatives of the state) are required not to discriminate in providing marriage services, just as are the county clerks who issue licenses to GET married (which is not yet a marriage until a wedding occurs). If these secular, state representatives refuse to do their job, they can and should face vocation disciplinary measures.

Hope that helps clarify.

[Stone holm]

We do not yet know how the SCOTUS will rule on SSM since the Prop 8 case was dismissed for lack of standing, and the Deciding vote on the DOMA case was decided on a very narrow Federalism analysis which held that where the State had expanded the rights of a minority based on the States' determination of fundamental rights the Federal Government could not interfere. The Utah case may well present the issue squarely and result in a decision on the merits. The SCOTUS has already determined that the right to marry is a fundamental right. The SCOTUS has also ruled that no government can interfere in the private consensual sex life by making private sodomy illegal. The fact that a super majority passed a State law is irrelevant to Constitutional analysis of whether an individual right exists. It is possible that the Court will find that homosexuals are not a protected class. It might also find that there is a rational basis for disallowing SSM. I do not know if Utah laws have closed the doors to such arguments. The administration offered a compromise in the Prop 8 case that was rejected by both wings of the Court, so I do not know what stance the administration will take, or whether it will just stay out of the case and let the State of Utah make its arguments and the SSM proponenants make theirs. Last time the administration argued that a Pro SSM ruling should be limited to those States which had granted all the rights to homosexuals except the right to marry,and leave it an open question in those which hadn't. That would follow the closed door analysis of the Vermont Supreme Court where it went through each secular argument made in defense of the ban and found that the State had already found otherwise as a matter of State law, examples State already allowed gay couples to adopt and sterile couples to marry hence down went the procreation argument, State already forbid discrimination down went the morality argument, adoption law plus studies showed gay parenting as good or better than straight parenting, etc. When they were eventually done, all that was left was religious beliefs and that violated the common benefits clause. So it could turn on what other laws Utah has on the books, or Chief Justice Kennedy who although he normally votes with the conservative wing could find they are a protected class, or that the law serves no rational purpose and end this divisive issue once and for all. If SCOTUS upholds the law, it is unlikely to end the issue because the anti's have basically lost the cultural war because of the Prop 8 debacle and the States will slowly establish SSM by political means. The rising generation will not abide discriminating against gays and Utah will slowly become isolated and will start losing convention bookings, tourism and other financial losses, it's high tech industry will be under pressure to leave and it's current economic prosperity will stumble. Then it will eventually amend its Constitution. Salt Lake City is already considered one of the gayest cities in America. It would probably be a great blessing to the State if it lost its case, so it could move on, but I doubt its current political culture understands that yet.

[thesometimesaint]

The difference between what authority the Constitution actually gave to the judiciary and what they have usurped over time is evidently lost on you. The don't get to decide; they have taken the power to "decide" to themselves and act as the final authority, without recourse - in their minds. They not only interpret the constitution according to their individual agendas, they mandate laws that must be implemented and practices that must be abolished or started - such as segregation. To any reasonable person, such fiat power is far beyond what was ever intended or given in the Constitution, and is a form of tyranny.

 

Ultimately the power to govern lies in the hands of the people - not appointed judges. That's what makes the California situation so egregious; the people clearly spoke twice about what their will was concerning marriage, and the judges ignored it on flimsy grounds of "equal protection", which has become a catch-all rationalization for whatever they want to do. In looking at the phrases used in their decisions about "harm" and "rights" it is very clear that they are being misused as justification for a course of action to mandate the agendas of the special interests they represent.

 

Frankly, those who insist that the decisions of judges be accepted without question and that their usurped authority be blindly acceded to are simply supporting tyranny, which undermines individual freedoms and liberties. While those whose agendas are gleefully implemented by judicial fiat may rejoice, they may soon find that the monster they have unleashed comes back to haunt them.

 

I'm well aware of the history of Marbury v Madison. Thank you very much.

 

So it is only opinions that you agree with that are Constitutional? The US Supreme Court of one. Not exactly what I think the Founders were thinking about when they said Checks and Balances and Due Process.

 

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. Moreover the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.

 

Who do you think justices are, little green men from Mars? Under our Constitution they are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. We elect our President and Senators. If you don't like a particular decision you are free to object, petition the government for a redress of grievances, even get enough popular support to draft a Constitutional Amendment to force a change in that Constitution. IE; We instituted Prohibition by Constitutional Amendment, we then removed Prohibition by Constitutional Amendment. That is how it works in this country.

 

A Tyranny? Either you have no clue as to what a real tyranny is or your are being hyperbolic in the extreme.

 

Yes we the people have the ultimate authority. We can at any time, if we want to, we can change our laws including the Constitution through our elected and appointed officials. We can even eliminate our government entirely. I don't recommend doing that, but we have that authority.

 

California already had Prop 22 which guaranteed full legal rights to marriage partners regardless of sex. Prop 8 tried to redefine those legal rights to marriage partners by sex. One or the other had to give. The California Supreme Court went with legal precedent in choosing Prop 22. As I have said many times before. While personally I oppose SSM. There is no legally consistent way to forbid it by the State. Let's make them all legally enforceable Civil Unions/Domestic Partnership contracts.

 

I never said without question. I also explained the way change is accomplished. I have only said that those decisions are Constitutional. IE; Unlike Sarah Palin there are a few USSC decisions I disagree with and just one example is the Dred Scott decision. I believe it was immoral, and objectionable on a number of fronts. However it was Constitutional.

 

The Dred Scott decision helped presage the US Civil War. But we did learn through sad experience just exactly what unrighteous dominion does.

[ERayR]

Therefore, a sealing is not the equivalent or above a marriage. Got it.

 

A sealing is not the same as a marriage.  As far as being equivalent or above I would say it is far superior.  For one thing it has a longer shelf life and is in vogue in the best circles.

[thesometimesaint]

A sealing is not the same as a marriage.  As far as being equivalent or above I would say it is far superior.  For one thing it has a longer shelf life and is in vogue in the best circles.

 

Agreed.

[ERayR]

This is incorrect. Much of the fearful predictions in this thread that LDS clergy will be "forced" to marry same-sex couples haven't made a clear distinction between "receiving a marriage licence" vs. "Being licensed by the state to marry couples (that is, to officiate over a wedding ceremony)." The failure to draw/understand the difference is probably contributing to these irrational fears.

 

This is a little incoherent.  I think it is you who is confused.  

By way of further explanation to differentiate:

Applying for and receiving a marriage license from a county clerk doesn't mean you ARE married. It means you have a license to GET married. After receiving that license to GET married, any couple must THEN get married by any official licensed by the state to do so--which could be a secular justice of the peace, authorized representative of the state, or a religious clergy member who gas been licensed by the state to do so. Licenses to get married expire if couples don't get married within a specific timeframe.

 

Yep your doing OK so far.

Clergy (even those licensed to officiate over weddings by the state) have never been, cannot, will never and should never be forced to marry individuals against their will or the specifications/requirements/tennants of their Faith.

 

I agree  they should never be coerced to marry individuals against their will, however, the track record of a certain group of people using coercion to get their way.  The authority for one to perform marriages being derived from permission by the state these groups would not hesitate to use coercion to try to force their way into church facilities and ceremonies.

 

In the US, the LDS church will not and cannot legally wed anyone in a temple who first has not applied for and received a license from a county clerk to then GET married.

 

Correct but they can seal anyone without permission from the state.

Couples are then required to bring that license to the temple/church/synagogue/park/courthouse/beach prior to their wedding/sealing (for LDS, in the temple). However, LDS clergy are NOT legally bound to wed anyone who brings them a legal marriage license (i.e. ANY non-LDS couple, Catholic couple, same-sex couple, atheist couple, etc).

 

Only if they want to be married.  They can be sealed by bringing a valid temple recommend.  As the authority to wed someone is one derived from the state I see the next move is to attempt to force the LDS clergy to perform marriages because they are agents of the state.

Justices of the Peace (as entirely secular representatives of the state) are required not to discriminate in providing marriage services, just as are the county clerks who issue licenses to GET married (which is not yet a marriage until a wedding occurs). If these secular, state representatives refuse to do their job, they can and should face vocation disciplinary measures.

 

And as religious clergy derive their authority to perform marriages from that same state it is only a matter of time.

Hope that helps clarify.

 

Hope that helps clarify.

[Stone holm]

James Madison: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in State governments are numerous and indefinite.” 

 

Not sure how the above post helps you out, at all. It certainly points out how the Federal government has usurped power not granted to it.

 

Odd that you should try to use the 14th amendment as justification for SSM when it has been abused so much by the judiciary with some particularly tortured interpretations. One that come readily to mind is the interpretation that the 14th amendment use of "person" includes corporations, which gives them protection equal to real people.

 

And we hold up the judiciary as being "reasonable"? Shelby's ruling simply confirms the downward trend of interpretive license.

 

Yeah the Southern States haven't like the 14th Amendment very much either.  The Madison reference which was pre-Civil War said that the 10th Amendment was a tautology it neither empowered, nor restricted any government, in other words its like saying "It is true, except when it is not."  Meaning it is a truism which is a statement which is true, but actually carries no substantive meaning.

[Daniel2]

Utah AG’s Office delays appeal to U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage

http://fox13now.com/2013/12/26/utah-ags-office-delays-appeal-to-u-s-supreme-court-on-gay-marriage/

Posted on: 9:59 am, December 26, 2013, by Ben Winslow

SALT LAKE CITY — A spokesman for the Utah Attorney General’s Office told FOX 13 the office is not expected to file an emergency request with the U.S. Supreme Court to halt same-sex marriage licenses from being issued “for a few days.”

The state had said Tuesday it would file a request with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver rejected the request. On Thursday, attorney general’s spokesman Ryan Bruckman said the office was coordinating with outside counsel before proceeding.

“The attorney general’s office is working to prepare the appeal to the Supreme Court on the 10th Circuit’s denial of a stay. Due to the necessity of coordination with outside counsel the filing of the appeal may be delayed for a few days,” he told FOX 13′s Ben Winslow. “It is the intent of the AG’s office to file with the Supreme Court as soon as possible.”

The delay means that same-sex marriages would continue to be performed in Utah until the nation’s top court decides. Justice Sotomayor, who oversees the 10th Circuit and Utah federal courts, could either grant or deny the stay, or she could ask the entire U.S. Supreme Court to decide the issue.

An appeal of U.S. District Court Judge Robert Shelby’s ruling that declared Amendment 3 unconstitutional is still pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. If the Supreme Court denies Utah’s request to halt same-sex marriage licenses from being issued, those marriages would continue to happen throughout the appeals process — which could be decided by 2015.

As of Thursday morning, all of Utah’s 29 counties were issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples — with the exception of tiny Piute County, which was issuing no licenses to any couple, gay or straight.

The county clerk is on vacation, commissioners said.

It's possible that marriage equality will be upheld by the 10th circuit court, thereby mandating same-sex marriage in the entire 10th circuit (including Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Kansas). I wonder if the UT Attorney General is having second thoughts...

D

[jwhitlock]

I'm well aware of the history of Marbury v Madison. Thank you very much.

 

So it is only opinions that you agree with that are Constitutional? The US Supreme Court of one. Not exactly what I think the Founders were thinking about when they said Checks and Balances and Due Process.

 

The constitutional guarantee of due process of law, found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits all levels of government from arbitrarily or unfairly depriving individuals of their basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, ratified in 1791, asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This amendment restricts the powers of the federal government and applies only to actions by it. Moreover the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". This clause limits the powers of the states, rather than those of the federal government.

 

Who do you think justices are, little green men from Mars? Under our Constitution they are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. We elect our President and Senators. If you don't like a particular decision you are free to object, petition the government for a redress of grievances, even get enough popular support to draft a Constitutional Amendment to force a change in that Constitution. IE; We instituted Prohibition by Constitutional Amendment, we then removed Prohibition by Constitutional Amendment. That is how it works in this country.

 

A Tyranny? Either you have no clue as to what a real tyranny is or your are being hyperbolic in the extreme.

 

Yes we the people have the ultimate authority. We can at any time, if we want to, we can change our laws including the Constitution through our elected and appointed officials. We can even eliminate our government entirely. I don't recommend doing that, but we have that authority.

 

California already had Prop 22 which guaranteed full legal rights to marriage partners regardless of sex. Prop 8 tried to redefine those legal rights to marriage partners by sex. One or the other had to give. The California Supreme Court went with legal precedent in choosing Prop 22. As I have said many times before. While personally I oppose SSM. There is no legally consistent way to forbid it by the State. Let's make them all legally enforceable Civil Unions/Domestic Partnership contracts.

 

I never said without question. I also explained the way change is accomplished. I have only said that those decisions are Constitutional. IE; Unlike Sarah Palin there are a few USSC decisions I disagree with and just one example is the Dred Scott decision. I believe it was immoral, and objectionable on a number of fronts. However it was Constitutional.

 

The Dred Scott decision helped presage the US Civil War. But we did learn through sad experience just exactly what unrighteous dominion does.

 

Have you ever looked at the wide variety of opinions and interpretations on the same matter that are issued from the bench? The Supreme Court itself is rarely united on anything; when a ruling is passed by majority vote, through politicking and negotiation, I'm not really sure how one can look at the result and say that it is correct or right in any sense of the word - especially since so many rulings get overturned over time. There appears to be no particular logic, just twisted rationalizations passed off as justification for a particular ruling.

 

I am under no obligation to respect such rulings that make no real sense, nor to agree with them. To say that since they make a ruling, I have to respect or agree with it is, in itself, a form of tyranny. The only obligation I have in such rulings that I don't agree with comes out of fear for the power their wield to enforce those rulings.

 

I am well aware of what tyranny is, having endured a desegregation order in the 1970's that no one wanted and that caused significant problems. Tyranny is the simple act of forcing one's will on someone else who is unwilling, especially when that will is arbitrary and dismissive of the will of the people. That's exactly what we have here in this country, and Shelby's ruling is tyrannical and arbitrary. The judiciary is highly inconsistent in what it mandates, which makes it clear that many rulings are arbitrary.

 

I've never bought into the false argument that we, as the people, have any real ability anymore to effect real change in government. That's been taken away from us by entrenched politicians and judges who pass laws and make rulings only designed to keep themselves in power. Want an example? Whenever the people try to start imposing term limitations in order to effect change in the government, those referendums are ruled "unconstitutional" and subsequently invalidated. Whenever someone tries to run for office outside of the structure of the two dominant political parties, they run into significant roadblocks put up by politicians to impede that change. Why, for instance, does the state of Pennsylvania require 10 times the number of signatures required by candidates of the two major parties, on a petition for an independent to run for office?

 

"Being constitutional" as you define it simply means that the SC has ruled on it. It doesn't necessarily make it right, or sound, or realistic, or rational. It often is a reflection of the agendas of the court and the politics that have significant influence on rulings, such as the SC's ruling on Obamacare. Politics is a lousy way to implement judicial rulings, and it happens all the time here.

 

The judicial system, like many other things, is broken. It's become an end in itself, mandating what it wants on the people, because judges know that the people have no real recourse.

 

And that, in every respect, is tyranny.

[Daniel2]

Have you ever looked at the wide variety of opinions and interpretations on the same matter that are issued from the bench? The Supreme Court itself is rarely united on anything; when a ruling is passed by majority vote, through politicking and negotiation, I'm not really sure how one can look at the result and say that it is correct or right in any sense of the word - especially since so many rulings get overturned over time. There appears to be no particular logic, just twisted rationalizations passed off as justification for a particular ruling.

I am under no obligation to respect such rulings that make no real sense, nor to agree with them. To say that since they make a ruling, I have to respect or agree with it is, in itself, a form of tyranny. The only obligation I have in such rulings that I don't agree with comes out of fear for the power their wield to enforce those rulings.

I am well aware of what tyranny is, having endured a desegregation order in the 1970's that no one wanted and that caused significant problems. Tyranny is the simple act of forcing one's will on someone else who is unwilling, especially when that will is arbitrary and dismissive of the will of the people. That's exactly what we have here in this country, and Shelby's ruling is tyrannical and arbitrary. The judiciary is highly inconsistent in what it mandates, which makes it clear that many rulings are arbitrary.

I've never bought into the false argument that we, as the people, have any real ability anymore to effect real change in government. That's been taken away from us by entrenched politicians and judges who pass laws and make rulings only designed to keep themselves in power. Want an example? Whenever the people try to start imposing term limitations in order to effect change in the government, those referendums are ruled "unconstitutional" and subsequently invalidated. Whenever someone tries to run for office outside of the structure of the two dominant political parties, they run into significant roadblocks put up by politicians to impede that change. Why, for instance, does the state of Pennsylvania require 10 times the number of signatures required by candidates of the two major parties, on a petition for an independent to run for office?

"Being constitutional" as you define it simply means that the SC has ruled on it. It doesn't necessarily make it right, or sound, or realistic, or rational. It often is a reflection of the agendas of the court and the politics that have significant influence on rulings, such as the SC's ruling on Obamacare. Politics is a lousy way to implement judicial rulings, and it happens all the time here.

The judicial system, like many other things, is broken. It's become an end in itself, mandating what it wants on the people, because judges know that the people have no real recourse.

And that, in every respect, is tyranny.

So...

Do you believe that the Supreme Court was morally correct in mandating desegregation....?

Do you believe the Supreme Court legally overstepped their bounds when they mandated desegregation...?

[jwhitlock]

So...

Do you believe that the Supreme Court was morally correct in mandating desegregation....?

Do you believe the Supreme Court legally overstepped their bounds when they mandated desegregation...?

 

No to the first question, and yes to the second question.

 

Note that this is from personal experience in the DC area. No one involved except for those mandating it wanted desegregation. It caused major problems, and solved nothing. It was a mistake.

[Daniel2]

No to the first question, and yes to the second question.

Note that this is from personal experience in the DC area. No one involved except for those mandating it wanted desegregation. It caused major problems, and solved nothing. It was a mistake.

That definitely helps put your views into context. I couldn't disagree more on virtually every aspect of this post.

I'd ask for a CFR on your allegations in your second paragraph, but I think the absurdity of your post is likely self-evident. Additionally, since the that's your view 40 years after desegregation, there's little chance of convincing you otherwise about that issue or marriage equality. But I hope you'll keep vigorously and publicly promoting your views, especially in the political realm.

D

[jwhitlock]

Like SSM, desegregation was a social experiment. As far as I can tell, it has been basically abandoned over the years. People self-segregate into neighborhoods and areas where they feel most comfortable, as the demographics of the DC area show. However, quite a bit of social wreckage was left behind by that experiment, and those whose lives were scarred by it don't think highly of it.

 

The best I can hope for is that SSM activists will be content once it becomes the law of the land. However, given what I've read from them, I would be very surprised if they leave it at that. If the church has true prophets (which notion I happen to subscribe to) then the increasing concern coming from them concerning assaults on religious freedom should be taken seriously. I see SSM being the foundation of one of those assaults. 

[Stone holm]

No to the first question, and yes to the second question.

 

Note that this is from personal experience in the DC area. No one involved except for those mandating it wanted desegregation. It caused major problems, and solved nothing. It was a mistake.

Wow. This is just...wow.

[jwhitlock]

Wow. This is just...wow.

 

Glad you're impressed by my experiences.

[Daniel2]

Glad you're impressed by my experiences.

Hmmm... is this JWHITLOCK tipping his hand that he's really a former, disaffected member intentionally trying to mischaracterize Mormonism to make the LDS church look bad...? I have a hard time taking this seriously, now.

[jwhitlock]

That definitely helps put your views into context. I couldn't disagree more on virtually every aspect of this post. I'd ask for a CFR on the last three sentences in your second paragraph, but I think the absurdity of your post is likely self-evident, and since the that's your view 40 years after desegregation, there's little chance of convincing you otherwise about that issue or marriage equality. But I hope you'll keep vigorously and publicly promoting your views, especially in the political realm.

D

 

Frankly, I don't care that you think my viewpoints are absurd. I lived through it. I saw the problems. It was abusive to put an entire generation of kids, both black and white, through that kind of social experiment. None of us on either side wanted it. And looking back at the results in the DC area, it is clear that it was a total waste.

 

Your response is informative. I know quite a bit about the real world impact of desegregation. It is clearly evident that you do not. The kinds of judicial mandates, like desegregation, that you think are so wonderful come at a significant cost and none of that seems to matter to you. Try actually informing yourself about the total impact of what went on, before you pass judgment on me in this matter.

 

There were valid concerns raised about desegregation in my schools. They were brushed aside, and the racial tensions that resulted were significant. Kids on both sides got hurt by the hate-mongering that crossed racial lines.

 

This is why this SSM issue is so frustrating. It's like history repeating itself, with valid concerns being raised and being brushed aside by arrogant judicial mandates. People on all sides are going to be hurt by this before it's over.

 

But that doesn't seem to matter to you. As long as the judges are issuing fiat mandates that you agree with, the real world results can be ignored. Just like your knee-jerk and uninformed assumption that desegregation was a wonderful thing leads you to demean the viewpoint of someone who lived through it and knows what actually happened, it is very clear to me that your assumptions concerning SSM in that nothing harmful can possibly come out of it are also ill-informed and poorly thought out. Having SSM crammed down the throat of the state of Utah in this manner is going to embolden those who want to punish those who oppose SSM, and it is going to build resentment in those who are affected by those seeking revenge. It's the worst way possible of putting SSM in place, and yet you gleefully rejoice in how wonderful it is without regard to the potential for conflict it engenders.

 

Desegregation was the worst possible way of trying to solve the racial problems that existed in America. And guess what? We still have racial problems. They've just morphed into something less open, but no less insidious as those with new-found power obtained by judicial mandate have abused that power over the last 50 years. SSM is being forced upon us in the same manner. History repeats itself.

[jwhitlock]

Hmmm... is this JWHITLOCK tipping his hand that he's really a former, disaffected member intentionally trying to mischaracterize Mormonism to make the LDS church look bad...? I have a hard time taking this seriously, now.

 

And here we go with the time-honored SSM activist methodology of demeaning and demonizing the opposition without actually addressing the evidence.

[jwhitlock]

This is starting to get quite interesting. Here's a bit of a recap of the methodology being used here:

 

Me: Desegregation was problematic and didn't work. People were hurt and the racism it was intended to stop never happened. It was implemented by judicial mandate, which was the worst thing to do and inflamed racial tensions on both sides. People who were looking for conflict on both sides found justification to start that conflict because of the judicial mandates.

 

SSM supporter: Wow, like you're actually questioning desegregation?? Your viewpoints are so obviously absurd that you can't be taken seriously. You're an embarrassment to your church with your viewpoints.

 

Me: SSM presents some potential problems because it's being implemented in a heavy-handed manner by judicial mandate. These include inroads against religious freedom, weakening of legal protections now available in marriage, and the stated willingness of some SSM activists to punish those who oppose SSM once the judicial mandates provide them with enough legal power to do so.

 

SSM supporter: You're actually questioning SSM? Your viewpoints are so obviously laughable that you can't be taken seriously. You're an embarrassment to your church with your viewpoints.

 

Anyone see the parallels? 

[Stone holm]

Glad you're impressed by my experiences.

Yeah, it's really pretty impressive to hear a Christian talk like a Confederate.